NATO vs. Russia

[Gamingphreek]

No chance that Russia and China would win.

You can argue that China has man power-- why does that matter.

They have virtually no AF and Navy. -- Once whatever is there has fallen, we dominate the skies and can then bomb the land
They have man power but not the Tech or the Training we have -- So you have to assume that 1 NATO troop = much greater than 1 R&C Troop.
Not only that, you said no nukes. You forget that Nukes aren't the only way to inflict mass damage. The US has bombs that are equal to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs now that are non-nuclear from what I remember. Russia MAY be able to boast such a beast, but China certainly can't -- That immediately reduces the effectiveness by a lot.

-Kevin

Edit: Oh and for the person who named BF 2-- That is a Harrier Jet, not the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
No chance that Russia and China would win.

You can argue that China has man power-- why does that matter.

They have virtually no AF and Navy. -- Once whatever is there has fallen, we dominate the skies and can then bomb the land
They have man power but not the Tech or the Training we have -- So you have to assume that 1 NATO troop = much greater than 1 R&C Troop.
Not only that, you said no nukes. You forget that Nukes aren't the only way to inflict mass damage. The US has bombs that are equal to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs now that are non-nuclear from what I remember. Russia MAY be able to boast such a beast, but China certainly can't -- That immediately reduces the effectiveness by a lot.

-Kevin

Edit: Oh and for the person who named BF 2-- That is a Harrier Jet, not the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The US has no conventional weapon in its inventory that is comparable in power to the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not even close.

 

[AMCRambler]

Depends. Who has first strike? Whose forces are positioned to attack and where? Are they attacking Europe on EU soil or the US on US soil? Are we trying to defend or are we attacking first? I think if Russia or China started the war, they would be a lot better positioned to wipe us out. If it was pre-emptive on Nato's part than they might stand a chance. Despite the US's and Nato's technological advantage, it takes time to organize a counter offensive. With the massive size of China and Russia's army they could easily steam roll the EU. The US would be more difficult thanks to the oceans in between. Chances of them pulling off a surprise attack of the size we are talking about is pretty minimal though. Too much reconnaisance in place that it could not be hidden from.
I am nervous about another cold war on the horizon. Putin is definitely getting twitchy. I read stories like the one below and think "uh oh".
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US...sian.bomber/index.html

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
No chance that Russia and China would win.

You can argue that China has man power-- why does that matter.

They have virtually no AF and Navy. -- Once whatever is there has fallen, we dominate the skies and can then bomb the land
They have man power but not the Tech or the Training we have -- So you have to assume that 1 NATO troop = much greater than 1 R&C Troop.
Not only that, you said no nukes. You forget that Nukes aren't the only way to inflict mass damage. The US has bombs that are equal to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs now that are non-nuclear from what I remember. Russia MAY be able to boast such a beast, but China certainly can't -- That immediately reduces the effectiveness by a lot.

-Kevin

Edit: Oh and for the person who named BF 2-- That is a Harrier Jet, not the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The MOAB isn't really an anti personnel weapon, and it's delivered by a C-130, which isn't a great delivery vehicle either, it's just not designed for it. The Russians, being the Russians, built something bigger - they always do that, they built the biggest nuke, the biggest cannon, the biggest bell. And even the Russian bomb is much much less powerful than a nuke (ie. about 40 tons equivalent of TNT vs. thousands of tons for even small nukes).

If you want to take out a lot of troops with conventional weapons, cluster bombs are probably the best way to go, and you can deliver them with combat aircraft/standoff weapons.

 

[Brovane]

Since Poland is part of Nato now. I would expect a large part of the Ground War to be fought on Polish soil instead of German soil. Good for the Germans bad for Poland.

 

[FoBoT]

we would nuke them
they would nuke us
the potato bugs win

 

[JTsyo]

Originally posted by: soydios
what Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us is that the USA kicks arse at full-scale war. it's occupations that we're not so good at it. it's a simple question of manpower: each soldier is an incredible offensive weapon with all the tech we have, hence we win the full-scale war; but occupation requires a soldier on every corner, no matter how much tech they have.

That's when you trying to keep the population friendly. If you don't have enough soldiers to police the population maybe you need a smaller population to police? You can guard way more people in camps than you can in their home areas. So moving out likely combatants to camps would allow you to guard them with fewer soldiers. Also since Moscow is close to the Europe, it wouldn't require the policing of the entire Russian landmass.

Back in the days of the USSR, they could have probably run over all of Europe with tanks, if nukes weren't a threat, before the US could mobilize into Europe. But the US forces of this day are way more mobile and the Russian forces are vastly reduced.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
No chance that Russia and China would win.

You can argue that China has man power-- why does that matter.

They have virtually no AF and Navy. -- Once whatever is there has fallen, we dominate the skies and can then bomb the land
They have man power but not the Tech or the Training we have -- So you have to assume that 1 NATO troop = much greater than 1 R&C Troop.
Not only that, you said no nukes. You forget that Nukes aren't the only way to inflict mass damage. The US has bombs that are equal to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs now that are non-nuclear from what I remember. Russia MAY be able to boast such a beast, but China certainly can't -- That immediately reduces the effectiveness by a lot.

-Kevin

Edit: Oh and for the person who named BF 2-- That is a Harrier Jet, not the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The US has no conventional weapon in its inventory that is comparable in power to the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not even close.

It might not be the most powerful US conventional bomb anymore, but that Mother Of All Bombs weapon has a blast yield of 11 tons. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the mid-high teens in KILOtons, so yeah, not quite close.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Edit: Oh and for the person who named BF 2-- That is a Harrier Jet, not the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

http://www.agentk.net/bf2map/screens/AC31_2.jpg

They don't look like Harriers to me.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Auggie
It already happened - remember Waterloo? Napoleon and the Czars went at it. Russia won because they burned and retreated, knowing they'd just come back in one or two years, after the damn French were frozen and starving. Russia could perhaps be contained... but there's probably a zero chance that Russia would ever be successfully invaded.

remember World War II? For Germany, it was one of two massive simultaneous campaigns using the same types of combined forces, and yet they managed to rock the Soviets quite easily for awhile... but the Russian winters put a hurting on Germany, and they slowly were able to fight back. But also remember the numbers Stalin sported by forcing as many people as possible into the war effort. Then again, plenty were untrained. The point remains...

Meh. They were critically delayed by having to counter the UK's invasion of Greece. Plus, Germany was geared only for quick campaigns, not protracted "total war". Even so, it is said victory could have been had if strategy had outweighed political motives rather than the reverse (i.e. bypass Stalingrad for Caucasus oil, and so on).

 

[everman]

NATO v Russia would be over in a day. Even without nukes there is still plenty of other things left. But since we didn't rule out biological weapons then I think Russia could still assure mutual annihilation.
have a nice day

 

[AMCRambler]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Edit: Oh and for the person who named BF 2-- That is a Harrier Jet, not the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

http://www.agentk.net/bf2map/screens/AC31_2.jpg

They don't look like Harriers to me.

Yeah the BF2 jet is a version of the F-35 with VTOL capability. I think it's the F-35B.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: nonameo
LOL

1v1 - n00bs only - 20 min build time, no AIR no NUKES


edit: russia has the oil.

Hah!

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Since you threw China in the mix, and said no nukes, they would bury NATO, eventually.

Pipe dream.

We can keep China and Russia bottled up as long as we want. Take a look at China's Navy - they aren't sending troops anywhere via water.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bladder23
Guys, dont forget China has over 4x the population of the US.

No nukes = Chinese victory

what are they going to fight it with? sticks?

 

[miketheidiot]

it would be a rout. what kind of idiot thinks that china and russia could win this?

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bladder23
Guys, dont forget China has over 4x the population of the US.

No nukes = Chinese victory

what are they going to fight it with? sticks?

China reportedly has a standing army of 10 million men - but almost all of that is used up maintaining control of their own country - how much of NATO is tied up keeping order inside it's member nations? None. If China starts pulling troops out of it's cities to go fight somewhere the Chinese will revolt and end their participation in any war very quickly. The Chinese government knows this, which is why they aren't attacking anyone.

 

[fallenangel99]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: ironwing
Since you threw China in the mix, and said no nukes, they would bury NATO, eventually.

Pipe dream.

We can keep China and Russia bottled up as long as we want. Take a look at China's Navy - they aren't sending troops anywhere via water.

True, plus China has only 1 aircraft carrier right?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: senseamp
NATO can't even handle Afghanistan, much less China and Russia together.

Russia couldn't handle Afghanistan + Nato, and that's when it actually had a good military...

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Depends. Who has first strike? Whose forces are positioned to attack and where? Are they attacking Europe on EU soil or the US on US soil? Are we trying to defend or are we attacking first? I think if Russia or China started the war, they would be a lot better positioned to wipe us out. If it was pre-emptive on Nato's part than they might stand a chance. Despite the US's and Nato's technological advantage, it takes time to organize a counter offensive. With the massive size of China and Russia's army they could easily steam roll the EU. The US would be more difficult thanks to the oceans in between. Chances of them pulling off a surprise attack of the size we are talking about is pretty minimal though. Too much reconnaisance in place that it could not be hidden from.
I am nervous about another cold war on the horizon. Putin is definitely getting twitchy. I read stories like the one below and think "uh oh".
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US...sian.bomber/index.html

The days of sneaking an army to the border are long gone. I think someone would notice if a few million troops, along with all their equiptment and logistics, started mobilizing towards the border.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: ironwing
Since you threw China in the mix, and said no nukes, they would bury NATO, eventually.

Pipe dream.

We can keep China and Russia bottled up as long as we want. Take a look at China's Navy - they aren't sending troops anywhere via water.

True, plus China has only 1 aircraft carrier right?

it has none
Text

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bladder23
Guys, dont forget China has over 4x the population of the US.

No nukes = Chinese victory

what are they going to fight it with? sticks?

China reportedly has a standing army of 10 million men - but almost all of that is used up maintaining control of their own country - how much of NATO is tied up keeping order inside it's member nations? None. If China starts pulling troops out of it's cities to go fight somewhere the Chinese will revolt and end their participation in any war very quickly. The Chinese government knows this, which is why they aren't attacking anyone.

Text

that army they have probably wouldn't be able to successfully invade france.

 

[HannibalX]

It would never get off their continent.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: nonameo
LOL

1v1 - n00bs only - 20 min build time, no AIR no NUKES


edit: russia has the oil.

lol

1v1 FASTEST, NR20.

I played taht with my cousin and I spent my time building 8 nuke silos. Then I sent a squad of 4 ghosts and rotated them nuking his front line. I didn't even get to his base but he got frustrated that I kept blowing up his d-line and he sent his carriers in. Lockdown 1 by 1. Goliaths pwned the rest, and he quit. Then again I'm like 8 years older than he is. Whoops.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

Originally posted by: TehMac
The Mig29 (Mig35 now, basically a '29 with upgraded Avionics), Su-27s, and Su-37s are all really fine aircraft.

So is the F22 Raptor and the plethora of stealth bombers the US has...


But with China in the mix, R+C would win. China has MANPOWER. Wars of attrition are won by the country with the manpower and will to continue. Just look at Vietnam...

Vietnam had nothing to do with manpower. It had everything to do with "politically safe", limited offensive projection, warfare.